The Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah during his first address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on 11th August, 1947 said:

“We are all citizens and equal citizens of one state….Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal, and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.”1

Those who do not have full grasp of the Two-Nation Theory are often misled by the phrase used by the Quaid when he said, “Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims.” They wrongly infer from these words that the Quaid’s vision of Pakistan was that of a secular state in which religion would have no role to play. In this way they mistakenly by wish to hoodwink the people that with the creation of Pakistan the Quaid had given up his affiliation with the Ideology of Islam which he so vehemently asserted before the creation of Pakistan. This mistaken view has already witnessed dangerous interpretations. Therefore, it is not surprising when people of much high caliber as Mr. Justice Mohammad Munir, the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, in his book from Jinnah to Zia while referring to the said speech of the Quaid has observed:

“The pattern of Government which the Quaid-i-Azam had in mind was a secular democratic government.”2

The pre-political phase of the Two-Nation Theory should not be confused with its post-political era. Evidentially, before the creation of an Islamic State, the Muslims and the non-Muslims are two different and distinct nations. The Muslims, in every respect, are a nation, irrespective and independent of geographical boundaries and racial or linguistic bonds. Their religion governs them in every walk of life. In their socio-economic solidarity they have not to be dependent on the state legislation. State legislation is just transcendence of the comprehensive and complete code of life laid down by the Holy Quran and the Holy Sunnah of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Sall Allah ho alaihe wa sallam).

Islam provides intellectual foundation for the institutional organization of mankind; whereas territorial nationalism based on geographic, linguistic and racial affinities lead to spiritual paralysis and material superiorities of colour, language, territory, tribe and heritage. Territorial nationalism makes impossible the universal brotherhood of mankind. The motto of Muslim Nationhood in the expression of the Unity of God (Taied-e-Ilahi) in thought and action in accordance with the Will of God. Despite everything else the word country (watan) as a term of Geography is not contrary to Islam. Love of Motherland is a natural sentiment. But when the word country is used as a concept of Political Science, it comes into conflict with Islam, for Islam is itself a comprehensive principle of institutional organization.

The national resilience of the Pakistani people is to be judged by the degree of their consciousness and commitment to guard their values, traditions and honour called the ‘national purpose’, or the raison d’être, as the French call it. National purpose is sacrosanct and sublime. Quaid-i-Azam first of all preferred to affirm his own faith, belief and commitment to the cause of Pakistan.

On October 22, 1939, while addressing All-India Muslim Council, he said:
.
.

“I have seen enough in my life, experienced the pleasures of wealth, fame and life of repose and comfort. Now I have one single ambition, to see Muslims gaining freedom and rise to the pinnacle of glory. It is my very ultimate wish that when I die, my conscience and my Allah may testify that, Jinnah never betrayed Islam and that he relentlessly struggled for the freedom of Muslims, to forge institutional discipline among them and strengthen their resolve. I do not wish to get acclamation or reward from you. I only nourish the desire that, my heart, my faith and my conscience, all bear testimony till my death that Jinnah, ‘you contributed your share for the resistance against Islam and my Allah proclaim that “Jinnah you were a born Muslim, lived as such and died, quite steadfastly, holding the banner of Islam against the evil forces.”

Prior to launching of the Pakistan Movement in the South Asian Subcontinent, the economic conditions of the Muslims, in general, were precarious. For this both the British and the Hindu Bania had joined hands after the fall of Mughal Rule in India. Muslim League objective, therefore, was aimed at economic emancipation of the Muslims, both from the British Imperial exploitation as well as from the Hindu money lenders.

The idea behind a separate Muslim state was that, in such a state it would be possible for the incoming people’s government, to adopt and implement an economic system, based on the principles of Islamic Shariat, which prevent concentration of wealth into few hands, and thus ensure equitable distribution of the resources to the generality of the people, thereby paving the way for affluence and eradication of poverty and exploitation of man by man.

Unfortunately the continuation of the impact of the Pakistan Movement came to a dead stop after the sad demise of the father of the nation, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who had assimilated the idea into himself and projected it to the extent of founding a Muslim state which would provide the ground for the ultimate realization of the noble objective.

But the question remains, why it had been so? The answer is not far to seek: The elements of exploitation including the outgoing imperial blood-suckers, became super-active finding the field bereft with the power of resistance. The power of dynamic leadership was gone, and the masses, bereft of it, became totally powerless.

Here, we are reminded of the past, through centuries, as to how the elements of exploitation spread their world-wide tentacles of exploitation, blood-sucking of the people all over the globe, including the land which comprises PAKISTAN.

Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was one of the greatest leaders of the modern age, who not only led his people to independence but founded a separate homeland for them, where they could mould their lives in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Quran and traditions of Islam and cultivate their culture and civilization. This was a far greater achievement of the Quaid than any other national liberation leader. Other leaders struggled for independence within states already in existence. This he achieved almost single-handedly and constitutionally, and in the teeth of stiff opposition.

Prof. Stanly Wolpert has rightly said about the Quaid that “Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Muhammad Ali Jinnah did all three”.

Pakistan’s emergence was not just the emergence of a new state, but it was created on the basis of Islamic ideology. If Pakistan had not been created, the Muslims would have been under the militant Hindu majority in united India and lost in the Hindu majority.1

The only objective of the Pakistan movement was not to separate some provinces to save them from Hindu domination. Had it been so the Muslims of the minority provinces would never have taken the active part they did in the freedom movement. The Muslims of the minority provinces knew that if Pakistan was created they would stand to gain nothing. Indeed might lose everything. Infact, the Muslims of South Asia believed that they were not fighting for a territory only, but for the preservation of their culture and civilization, language and literature and Islamic way of life.

The Quaid-i-Azam at first devotedly worked for the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity and spent most of energies and efforts towards its attainment. His efforts were appreciated and Mr. Jinnah was acknowledged by the Hindus themselves. But the conditions soon led the Muslims of the subcontinent to change their outlook and adopt a different course.

The awareness of a separate Muslim nationhood in the subcontinent can be traced back to a millennium when it was noticed for the first time by Alberuni, who visited India in the 9th century and wrote in his famous work Kitab-al-Hind as under:

For the reader must always bear in mind that the Hindus entirely differ from us in every respect, many a subject appearing intricate and obscure which would be perfectly clear if there were more connection between us. The barriers which separate Muslims and Hindus rest on different causes. First, they differ from us in everything which other nations have in common. And here we first mention the language, although the difference of language also exists between other nations.2

He further said:

Many Hindu customs differ from those of our country and of our time to such a degree as to appear to us simply monstrous. One might almost think they had intentionally changed them into the opposite, for our customs do not resemble theirs, but are the very reverse; and if ever a custom of theirs resembles one of ours, it has certainly just the opposite meaning.3

Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1876-1948) was undoubtedly a fascinating, striking and remarkable personality. Possessed of excellent qualities of pen and mind, he played a significant role in changing the course of history and destinies of men in South Asia. A born leader of men, an experienced politician, a dynamic parliamentarian and a far-sighted statesman, he valiantly fought against the British imperialism and Hindu chauvinism in India and single-handedly won the battle of Pakistan.

More strikingly, the Quaid was not only a great defender of the cause of Pakistan, he equally struggled to safeguard the interest of all minority communities in India, irrespective of race, religion and colour. A moderate leader, he stood for a just and honourable treatment of them. Belonging himself to a minority nation, the Indian Muslims, he well understood the minority peoples. At the same time, he fully realized the dominating behaviour and mentality of majority people, the Hindus. A far-sighted politician, he did comprehend the future designs of Hindu majority raj in India. Anyway, the Quaid always remained anxious about the future of minorities in undivided India. “To live and let live” was the basic principle of his political philosophy. To support the cause of any community was an article of faith with him. He often sympathized the grievances of scheduled castes and frequently advocated the cause of Sikhs.

The founding of Pakistan by Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah so greatly dominates his political life and career that his other roles are bound to be ignored. One important role which Jinnah played in the politics of India was for the achievement of unity between the Hindus and Muslims by bringing about some understanding between the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League. In fact, for more than two decades Jinnah was known more for this role than for any other. It will be recalled that Gopal Krishna Gokhale expressed the view that Jinnah “has true stuff in him and that freedom from all sectarian prejudice which will make him the best ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity.”1 Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, who compiled Jinnah’s speeches and writings in 1918 gave the volume the sub-title An Ambassador of Unity and wrote that Jinnah stood “approved and confirmed by his countrymen not merely as an ambassador, but as an embodied symbol of Hindu-Muslim unity.”2 Similarly, Jawahar Lal Nehru, who strongly differed from Jinnah on several political issues, wrote in 1936 that Jinnah had been “largely responsible in the past for bringing the Moslem League nearer to the Congress.”3 The fact is that Jinnah continued to work for unity between the Hindus and Muslims until he was convinced early in 1940 that the Hindu leaders were not at all prepared for any kind of understanding. The purpose of this paper is to discuss this aspect of Jinnah’s political life.

The reputation of the Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah as the champion of Muslim rights, as the protagonist of the Two Nation Theory and as the Founding Father of Pakistan is so secure that I feel we may be in some danger of forgetting the long road which he had to travel before he could emerge as the Leader of the greatest Muslim mass-movement of our time. In saying this I do not refer only to the slow process of uniting sections or the Muslim community, deeply divided as they were in aims and outlook, in pursuit of a common objective, but also the struggle which went on in his own mind as hard facts compelled him to discard certain of the ideas which had inspired him to attain the first rank among Leaders of the All India Nationalist movement. This mental revolution, if I may use the term, was painful enough to drive him into temporary political exile, from which he only emerged when he had adjusted his thinking to meet the needs of a new situation. Experience had taught him, as it had taught the famous Florentine statesman, the deadly danger of mistaking things as they are for things as we would like them to be.

As a young contemporary of Muhammad Ali Jinnah – he was only thirteen years of age when I was born – I was privileged to follow his career in some details, and, indeed, to come into close contact with him at some of the turning points by which that career was marked. While it was still at school I began to see Mr. Jinnah’s name in print. I gathered that when he was only sixteen years old, his Father, a shrewd Khoja businessman of Karachi, had sent him to England to read for the Bar examinations; that when in England, he had come under the influence of that Grand Old Man of the Indian Nationalist Movement, Dadabhai Naoroji, then President of the Indian Society in London, and one of the founding members of the Indian National Congress. The young Jinnah became an enthusiastic convert to Congress ideas; and when, as a newly qualified Barrister, a decline in the family fortunes obliged him to seek wider opportunities than his native city of Karachi could offer, he migrated to Bombay, he found himself in a society which was already among the most flourishing seedbeds of these ideas in the India of the day. Jinnah was, it seemed, particularly attracted by the personality and outlook of Gopal Krishna Gokhale, who, on his part was delighted to find in Jinnah a man after his own heart. He wrote to him: “He has the true stuff in him; and that freedom from all sectarian prejudice which will make him the best ambassador of Hindu Muslim unity”. By 1996 Jinnah was not only building up a lucrative practice at the Bombay Bar; he was marked as a rising political figure. In that same year he acted as Secretary to Dadabhai Naoroji at the Calcutta meeting of the Indian National Congress when the ideal of self-government for India was formally adopted as a Congress objective.

Quaid-e-Azam always believed in and stood for human rights. In pre-Partition period he championed the cause of liberty, freedom of speech and association and other rights. In the Eighteenth Annual Session of the Muslim League held at Delhi in December 1926, Quaid-e-Azam proposed a resolution demanding that the Government of India Act 1919 should be revised and that without delay a Royal Commission be appointed to formulate a scheme so as to place Indian Constitution on a sound and permanent basis with provisions to establish full responsible Government in India.The resolution further demanded that any scheme of the future of Constitution of India should secure and guarantee, among others, the following basic and fundamental principles.

In the famous Fourteen Points formulated by the Quaid-e-Azam on March 28, 1929, point No.7 embodied the provisions relating to liberty, association, education, belief and other fundamental rights and it was demanded that such rights should be guaranteed to all the communities.

I don’t think I ever got down to thanking you for your efforts in helping form Pakistan. I was born thirty-six years after you and a team of dedicated, patriotic and self-less leaders inspired the Muslims of India to separate themselves in pursuit of an independent nation. Hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives so that future generations like mine can live in a sovereign state. Thank you.

Things now aren’t as great as you visioned them to be though.

The religion you made the basis for separation is now divided within itself. It’s being abused, sabotaged and exploited by everyone who has the capability to do so. Islam meant peace. Now, it’s being cited as the root of everything otherwise.

The poor, helpless people whose rights you fought for aren’t poor or helpless anymore. They have become poor-er and more helpless.

You remember the overly rich and greedy people of your time? They still roam dauntlessly, sucking the blood of the common man and giving him nothing in return but grief, sickness and death.

I

This paper suggests that the creation of a State by its very nature is not the work of one man. It is a joint product of a number of historical forces. The great man –the Quaid-i-Azam – who played a dominant role was himself conditioned by certain historical forces. There was not one Jinnah but at least two. There was the Jinnah of the early phase, which lasted until late thirties or even very early forties. The Jinnah of this phase was almost entirely constitutional or the rational or the westernized and aloof Jinnah. Jinnah in his second phase has been transformed by the current of Muslim mass support for the idea of a separate Muslim state.

The other major conceptual component of this paper is the idea of the founder of a state as distinct (analytically) from a leader of a nationalist movement like Gandhi or a visionary or a dreamer or a philosopher like Iqbal. These qualities of combining values and institutions are demonstrated in the personality of the founder of a state like the Quaid-i-Azam. Finally, we should try to distinguish between creating a new state on the structures of old or existing institutions, and creating a revolutionary state. In the former certain new values are grafted on the old or existing institutions. The result is dialectical struggle between the power of entrenched institutions in absorbing or subverting new values and the capacity and vigour of new values in transforming old or existing institutions. In the case of a revolutionary state, new values create new institutions.

In 1913 the Quaid-i-Azam joined the All India Muslim League without abandoning the membership of the Congress of which he had been an active member for some years. But this membership of the two organizations ended in December 1920. On the occasion of the special session at Nagpur the Congress adopted a new creed which permitted the use of unconstitutional means and decided to resort to non-violent non-co-operation for the attainment of self-government. The new policy and programme in essence envisaged withdrawal of the students from schools and colleges, boycott of law-courts by lawyers and litigants as well as the impending elections to the legislatures under the Government of India act 1919 either as voters or as candidates.1 The new philosophy of the Congress had been shaped almost entirely under the influence of Gandhi who had, by then, emerged as a commanding figure in Congress politics. Although there were many prominent Congressmen such as C.R. Das and Lala Lajpat Rai who did not subscribe to the programme of non-co-operation2, Jinnah was the only one in a crowd of several thousand people who openly expressed serious disagreement.

Pakistan, the beacon of hope for the Muslims of South Asia and beyond, was created under the leadership of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. He was not a traditional politician but a great leader, brilliant statesman and a master strategist, who fought the case for Pakistan so well that he did not only frustrate the designs of the British that wished to see the subcontinent united at one form or another till the last moment, but also made the brute Hindu majority believe that division of the subcontinent had saved it from some bigger catastrophe. He had united the Muslims of the subcontinent and waged struggle for a separate homeland for Muslims to rid them of brute majority’s exploitation and repression and also to enable them to lead their lives according to their faith and culture. This twin-objective is, in fact, is the ideology of Pakistan.

Our leaders should emulate Quaid-i-Azam who had united the people who were earlier divided on the basis of sects and ideologies. The Muslims of the subcontinent had reposed full confidence in him and accepted his concept and perception of the new state – Pakistan. Today, the myriad political and religious parties, intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals have variegated views and perceptions, and there is ongoing debate for the last 62 years about the purpose and rationale behind the creation of Pakistan. Different schools of thought interpret Quaid-i-Azam’s speeches to serve their ends, but Quaid-i-Azam had envisioned Pakistan to be a modern progressive state, rooted in the eternal values of Islam, and at the same time responsive to the imperatives of constant change.

‘Packard’! the cry would go up, and we would rush to the roadside as Jinnah’s yellow Packard glided by with him, immaculately turned out as always, in the backseat.

This was New Delhi in early 1947, and the place: the India Gate grounds – where we played cricket every evening. We, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim schoolboys from St Columbus, would prance and frolic, as Jinnah watched with half-amused smile. His finger would then rise to his lips and the prancing and frolicking would immediately cease.

Early 1947 was the period Mountbatten had just become viceroy, and was ‘waging’ negotiations with Congress and Muslim League leaders at a hectic pace. Jinnah’s Packard would often be seen driving to, or from, the Vice Regal lodge, the viceroy’s residence, as would also Liaquat Ali Khan’s black Mercury, or Nehru’s limousine. We would rush to the roadside every time any one of these cars was spotted and, frankly, not too respectfully, prance and frolic. Jinnah raising his finger to his lips would silence us, Liaquat Ali Khan gave us what clearly was a ‘not amused’ stare, Nehru would put on his famous faraway look, as if we were not there.

In 712 A.D. Hajjaj bin Yusuf Saqafi despatched Muhammad bin Qasim at the head of an expeditionary force to punish Dahir of Sind. That Hindu Raja had shown recalcitrance and behaved with impunity when warned not to neglect the safe passage of Hajis along the coastal strip of his territories. The young arab general won the first Muslim foothold on the Subcontinent. But it was a long time before torrent after torrent of Muslim conquerors from Afghanistan and Central Asia swept down the passes of the North-West Frontier. Thus, established Muslim rule in the Subcontinent continued in varying power and glory for about a thousand years. For in 1707 A.D. when Aurangzeb died, almost all India was under Muslim sway.

Early in the seventeenth century the British came to the Subcontinent by sea, appearing as merchants, and, favoured by Mughal generosity, they established trading posts mostly on and near the western coasts. A century and a half later they were in the thick of the power struggle going on the replace the declining Mughal authority. Through conspiracy, force and fraud, they grabbed, annexed and transacted Muslim principalities and Muslim territories wherever they lay, in Bengal in the east, in Oudh in the north, in Mysore in the sourth and in Sind in the west. The first big blow came 50 years after Aurangzeb, in 1757, when Nawab Sirajuddaulah lost the day against the English at Plassey in Bengal, and the last one 150 years after Aurangzeb, in 1857, when the last Mughal emperor, Sirajuddin Bahadurshah Zafar, lay prostrate at Delhi, watching helplessly the massacre of his children and appearing as a rare-show in the bazaars of his capital before being exiled to Rangoon in Burma where he died and was buried.

The British rise to power in the Subcontinent was marked by two perennial factors: first, their inveterate hostility to Islam and the Muslim which they shared with the other Christian countries of Europe since their defeat at the hands of Sultan Salahuddin in 1187 A.D. and, secondly, the ready and steady cooperation which the Hindu, having been ruled by the Muslim for a thousand years, extended to the British. Thus while the British built up and boosted the Hindu in every field and by every means, they put down and ruined the Muslim everywhere and in alt possible ways; and the Hindu, paying off old scores, has often on the side of the British and pitted against the Muslim. The most heinous outrage that this British-Hindu combine perpetrated was the sale-deed of Kashmir. In 1946 the British struck a deal with Gulab Singh, a Dogra Hindu of Jammu, to give him possession of that beautiful land, with its 80% Muslim population (now about 6,500,000) and its area well over 180,000 sq. km., for a cash payment of 15,000,000 rupees. A people and their homeland transacted as a common piece of landed property. It was an enormity, a most monstrous crime against humanity; Allama Muhammad Iqbal, himself of Kashmiri stock, cried out some eighty years[1]

Wood and stream and field and ploughman, And a nation into the bargain,

December 25 of every year reminds me of a marvelous philosophical saying; Life is like a tennis match. If you want to win, you must serve well, return well and play coolly. Always remember that the game begins with Love all; this saying freshens my mind with the memories of all those who conquered this world with the sword of love and affection, particularly of the Holy Christ and Mr. Mohammed Ali Jinnah., no doubt two immortal personalities; one who brought the heavenly message of benevolence and kindheartedness for the whole humanity and the other who gave a new life to the ever-crushed and ever-trampled Muslims of the Indian Sub-continent. He proved that it is not the history which makes the people immortal; it is their determination and the commitment to their goal which transforms them into the eternal.

Mr. Mohammed Ali Jinnah gave the Muslims of the un-partitioned India a separate identity and an undeniable recognition. In July 1942 a journalist from the American press asked him whether the Muslims were a nation or not. Jinnah replied in his typical tone full of resolve and determination,

“We are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions, in short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all cannons of international law we are a nation.”